You can't assess these things (or anything in real world) alone, but in context of what's going on in the whole world (and what isn't). After that, its on everybody how they view their personal freedom and themselves vs the averaged good of the whole nation/civilization.
Who gets to define the greater good? We had share morals at one time with religion but that's been tore down relentless so what are those shared ideals now.
The fact of the matter is that eradication is impossible so what are we actually trying to achieve here. Reduce impact on health care? Maybe we should ban smoking and alcohol then or maybe MacDonalds, where is the line?
Well that's certain an answer. Voters and non-voters alike are, of course, free to define "the greater good" for themselves provided they refrain from harming others while putting their definition into practice, but what moral justification do the winners of an election have to enforce their definition on anyone else or harm others to implement it just because they were backed by an arbitrarily small majority of the voters? Which is a subset of the eligible voting population, and (perhaps more importantly) an even smaller subset of those who will be affected?
Religion should be torn down given its history of violence and support of ignorance and general attitude towards reality and science. Not violently of course but through education and critical thinking skills because it cannot survive under the light of the actual truth about the reality of things.
